Jump to content


I'll be honest, I like Proving Ground


  • Please log in to reply
163 replies to this topic

Iron_Soul_Stealer #141 Posted Jan 06 2018 - 00:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 10,124
  • [JEDI9] JEDI9
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostGothraul, on Apr 09 2017 - 21:10, said:

I wish they did this for all tiers and all the usual maps as this mode is good for going full hurr durr just to blow off steam.

 

^..Yep, I'd love to see that, too. Or at least bring Proving Grounds to tier 5, for now....

 

And I agree, it's fun to blow off some steam sometimes, and blast some bots.

 

 



Iron_Soul_Stealer #142 Posted Jan 31 2018 - 04:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 10,124
  • [JEDI9] JEDI9
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostIron_Soul_Stealer, on Dec 21 2017 - 20:28, said:

Call me stupid, but I just figured something out here...:amazed:

 

Has anyone else out there noticed that all of the bot tanks in Proving Grounds are named after stars and other celestial bodies..?

 

*ie. El Nath {Beta Tauri}, Altair, etc., etc...{the list goes on and on..}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Tauri

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair

^..Yep, true story...:rolleyes:

All the bots are "super" stars! Nice touch, Wargaming! 

 

And on that note...

I just saw this beautiful star the other night. First in a quick game of Proving Grounds, and then in my backyard. I looked up.. and to the North, and there it was. Beautiful! 

 

Polaris

 

 

 

 



Iron_Soul_Stealer #143 Posted Mar 21 2018 - 02:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 10,124
  • [JEDI9] JEDI9
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

So, apparently WG is removing Proving Grounds completely from the game in 1.0..?

 

Too bad....:( I hope they plan on replacing it with something better.

 



Iron_Soul_Stealer #144 Posted Apr 24 2018 - 23:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 10,124
  • [JEDI9] JEDI9
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Yep, it's true.

Rest in Peace Proving Grounds.

 

 So, if we're not going to have Proving Grounds anymore....

 

*Then I'd like to see this PvE/co-op mode implemented in the game:

A Historical Battle scenario {PvE mode} would be super fun and cool, as long as there are no restrictions placed on tank type and tier used by allies {us}. I remember the old historical battle mode where players were restricted and only allowed to use particular tanks and tiers. I wouldn't want that kind of restriction again. I want to be able to use ALL of my tanks, regardless of tier {tiers 1 through 10}. Maybe the enemy tank bots could be historically accurate. I'd be fine with that. But I think I own some 'prototype' premium tanks that I would still like to use in this mode, even though they are probably not historically accurate. 

 

Another thing I remember is {was} the long waiting time to get into those historical battles. I would wait, and wait...and wait, only to be booted out because not enough real players were joining in. WG could easily fix that problem by simply filling in the empty allied spots with friendly bots, like they currently do in Warships, {If there aren't enough real players in the Q at that particular moment}. Again, I don't have a problem with that. As long as I could still earn some decent credits and XP, and advance my crew skills. I'd love to be able to play tanks in a historical PvE mode. If WG did this, I might even dust off my tier 8, and finally learn how to use it properly.

 

 

 

 



Grey_Owl #145 Posted Jun 03 2018 - 01:34

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 900 battles
  • 777
  • Member since:
    12-09-2012

View PostIron_Soul_Stealer, on Apr 24 2018 - 17:17, said:

Yep, it's true.

Rest in Peace Proving Grounds.

 

 So, if we're not going to have Proving Grounds anymore....

 

*Then I'd like to see this PvE/co-op mode implemented in the game:

A Historical Battle scenario {PvE mode} would be super fun and cool, as long as there are no restrictions placed on tank type and tier used by allies {us}. I remember the old historical battle mode where players were restricted and only allowed to use particular tanks and tiers. I wouldn't want that kind of restriction again. I want to be able to use ALL of my tanks, regardless of tier {tiers 1 through 10}. Maybe the enemy tank bots could be historically accurate. I'd be fine with that. But I think I own some 'prototype' premium tanks that I would still like to use in this mode, even though they are probably not historically accurate. 

 

Another thing I remember is {was} the long waiting time to get into those historical battles. I would wait, and wait...and wait, only to be booted out because not enough real players were joining in. WG could easily fix that problem by simply filling in the empty allied spots with friendly bots, like they currently do in Warships, {If there aren't enough real players in the Q at that particular moment}. Again, I don't have a problem with that. As long as I could still earn some decent credits and XP, and advance my crew skills. I'd love to be able to play tanks in a historical PvE mode. If WG did this, I might even dust off my tier 8, and finally learn how to use it properly.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree. I would like a historical battle option like the one you described. I think that would be interesting and fun.

   



Iron_Soul_Stealer #146 Posted Oct 01 2018 - 02:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 10,124
  • [JEDI9] JEDI9
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostGrey_Owl, on Jun 02 2018 - 19:34, said:

 

I agree. I would like a historical battle option like the one you described. I think that would be interesting and fun.

   

 

^..Sadly, I don't think Wargaming is listening.

 

 



da_Rock002 #147 Posted Oct 08 2018 - 13:53

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 8467 battles
  • 3,287
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

The Common Test that's running now has got "bot mode" working in tier5.    It's a regular Random with 15 players to a side with one wrinkle.   The queues for the lower tiers are so empty, that the MM is taking the few tier5 players who show up and adding enough bots to fill the sides to 15 vehicles.

 

I've seen 2 humans to a side, and 3 humans to a side.

 

 

It basically works like the old Proving Grounds only it's not restricted to bottom tier tanks. 

It looks like the AI isn't improved at all.   Using the larger maps leaves the bots at a loss when they wander off into what to them looks like uncharted territory.  But it's still a good place to try out things.   And it should only get better.   That is, if WG takes the time and effort to work on the AI. 


 

It is said to be planned for LATAM.    Hopefully WG won't segregate it and US players have access. 

And hopefully it won't update your stats, as the bots are deadly in bunches but pushovers after they've dispersed.   Right now, it definitely does NOT play like regular Random does. 



Iron_Soul_Stealer #148 Posted Oct 18 2018 - 05:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 10,124
  • [JEDI9] JEDI9
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postda_Rock002, on Oct 08 2018 - 07:53, said:

The Common Test that's running now has got "bot mode" working in tier5.    It's a regular Random with 15 players to a side with one wrinkle.   The queues for the lower tiers are so empty, that the MM is taking the few tier5 players who show up and adding enough bots to fill the sides to 15 vehicles.

 

I've seen 2 humans to a side, and 3 humans to a side.

 

 

It basically works like the old Proving Grounds only it's not restricted to bottom tier tanks. 

It looks like the AI isn't improved at all.   Using the larger maps leaves the bots at a loss when they wander off into what to them looks like uncharted territory.  But it's still a good place to try out things.   And it should only get better.   That is, if WG takes the time and effort to work on the AI. 


 

It is said to be planned for LATAM.    Hopefully WG won't segregate it and US players have access. 

And hopefully it won't update your stats, as the bots are deadly in bunches but pushovers after they've dispersed.   Right now, it definitely does NOT play like regular Random does. 

 

^..Interesting.... 

 

*But honestly, I'm still waiting for this PvE mode:

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/64995-the-chieftains-random-musings-thread/page__st__7840__pid__11542472#entry11542472

 

Spoiler

 

 

 



Iron_Soul_Stealer #149 Posted Dec 02 2018 - 09:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 10,124
  • [JEDI9] JEDI9
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Thank you for the 5 million credits and the free garage slot, Wargaming.

 

Now, if we can just have a decent multi-tier PvE co-op battle mode. Something historical would be nice...

 



da_Rock002 #150 Posted Dec 02 2018 - 19:18

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 8467 battles
  • 3,287
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

Hey, you should take a shot at the SA server.   The bots there in the lower tiers provide a hint of what that'd be like.

 

 

They're not exactly unbeatable, and the ratio of human to bot is 8/7v8/7. 



Iron_Soul_Stealer #151 Posted Dec 21 2018 - 22:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 10,124
  • [JEDI9] JEDI9
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postda_Rock002, on Dec 02 2018 - 13:18, said:

Hey, you should take a shot at the SA server.   The bots there in the lower tiers provide a hint of what that'd be like.

 

They're not exactly unbeatable, and the ratio of human to bot is 8/7v8/7. 

 

Dude, I think WG threw me on that SA server the last time I logged in. I noticed right away I was getting very bad ping, so I transferred back to the central. Besides, that type of 'bot game' wasn't at all what I had in mind when I stated that I wanted to play a historical based PvE game mode, available for ALL tiers and tanks.

 

*What you're describing, above, is a regular random battle with a mixture of bots and real players on BOTH sides of the teams. That sounds VERY counter productive...especially for a MMO. Is this bot infiltration a case of 'desperate times call for desperate measures'..? Not enough real players in the queue..?

 

 



da_Rock002 #152 Posted Dec 23 2018 - 15:42

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 8467 battles
  • 3,287
  • Member since:
    11-24-2016

Good thing about the SA server and it having bots...

 

 

The usual team composition is almost half the players are bots. 


 

Funny thing I noticed was how few humans were alive halfway through the fight.   :rolleyes:



Iron_Soul_Stealer #153 Posted Dec 31 2018 - 05:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 10,124
  • [JEDI9] JEDI9
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postda_Rock002, on Dec 23 2018 - 09:42, said:

Good thing about the SA server and it having bots...

 

The usual team composition is almost half the players are bots. 

Funny thing I noticed was how few humans were alive halfway through the fight.   :rolleyes:

^..And speaking of that...:amazed:

 

*Did you watch the recent Claus Kellerman video..?

Claus showed a regular random battle with a mixture of in-game bots, and real players on BOTH sides. The video I watched was hilarious, but at the same time eerily disturbing. To make a long story short, the latter half of the battle ended up being only 'bots vs. bots.' All the real players on BOTH sides were knocked out early on. Seriously. No joke. I'll post it here...if I can find it again.

 

*Consequently, that wasn't what I had in mind when I stated that I wanted to play a historical based PvE game mode, available for ALL tiers and tanks. Again, I'm perfectly fine with having only bots on the enemy side of a battle in a completely separate PvE mode. However, having bots fill the vacant player spaces {on both teams} in our regular random battles would technically change the entire concept of the game. Not to mention, it could no longer be called a 'Massively-Multi-Player PvP online game'. What would our game be called then..? 'EPvEP'..?

 

   



Project100 #154 Posted Dec 31 2018 - 06:19

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 2972 battles
  • 1,138
  • [I-U-D] I-U-D
  • Member since:
    01-01-2016

View PostIron_Soul_Stealer, on Dec 30 2018 - 23:16, said:

 

*Did you watch the recent Claus Kellerman video..?

Claus showed a regular random battle with a mixture of in-game bots, and real players on BOTH sides. The video I watched was hilarious, but at the same time eerily disturbing.

 

I saw that video, watched it several times in fact. Lots of stuff to think about in it, both good and bad.

 

It reminded me of a very brief stint in that OTHER tank game that had a PvE mode. Even with a completely scripted, totally predictable, AI enemy there were teams losing to the bots because people are generally idiots who will lose a battle over a possible extra bit of XP.

 

EDIT: Found the link 

 


Edited by Project100, Dec 31 2018 - 06:24.


Iron_Soul_Stealer #155 Posted Jan 04 2019 - 07:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 10,124
  • [JEDI9] JEDI9
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostProject100, on Dec 31 2018 - 00:19, said:

 

I saw that video, watched it several times in fact. Lots of stuff to think about in it, both good and bad.

 

It reminded me of a very brief stint in that OTHER tank game that had a PvE mode. Even with a completely scripted, totally predictable, AI enemy there were teams losing to the bots because people are generally idiots who will lose a battle over a possible extra bit of XP.

 

EDIT: Found the link 

 

 

^..Yep, there's certainly lots of stuff to think about, isn't there.

 

*And speaking of that, did you happen to see the wot Q&A video a while back with Andrey Biletsky..? Apparently, Wargaming has now created an 'AI bot' that, and I quote, "Never makes a mistake". WoW! ...:amazed: I'll see if I can find the original Q&A video, and post it here. I believe it was Andrey himself that went on record for saying that, when asked about Wargamings' R&D regarding Artificial Intelligence {Bots} being introduced into the game.

 

Anyway, he later went on to say that having a 'Bot tank' in the game that "never makes a mistake" was unrealistic, and they would have to roll back some of their AI advancements to make the bot seem, and play, more like a real player. I wonder just how far they rolled it back..?

 

 

 

 



Project100 #156 Posted Jan 04 2019 - 12:36

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 2972 battles
  • 1,138
  • [I-U-D] I-U-D
  • Member since:
    01-01-2016

View PostIron_Soul_Stealer, on Jan 04 2019 - 01:10, said:

 

^..Yep, there's certainly lots of stuff to think about, isn't there.

 

*And speaking of that, did you happen to see the wot Q&A video a while back with Andrey Biletsky..? Apparently, Wargaming has now created an 'AI bot' that, and I quote, "Never makes a mistake". WoW! ...:amazed: I'll see if I can find the original Q&A video, and post it here. I believe it was Andrey himself that went on record for saying that, when asked about Wargamings' R&D regarding Artificial Intelligence {Bots} being introduced into the game.

 

Anyway, he later went on to say that having a 'Bot tank' in the game that "never makes a mistake" was unrealistic, and they would have to roll back some of their AI advancements to make the bot seem, and play, more like a real player. I wonder just how far they rolled it back..?

 

 

 

 

 

I think that the scariest part of that video is at the very end where the bot on cap drives through a wall to break it and then backs up just before the enemy arty drops a shot right where he would have been if he kept driving forward. That is some next-level $h!t right there.

Edited by Project100, Jan 04 2019 - 19:28.


dunniteowl #157 Posted Jan 04 2019 - 18:45

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 27690 battles
  • 6,645
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

We have to wonder, though, how much 'access' to the game in play do the BOTs get allowed?  In other words, do they have access to game level meta-information that we, as humans cannot?  After all, they are PART of the game as opposed to participating in one.  It certainly bears thinking about as a total.

 

If the game can end with more BOTs surviving than humans, it might mean they have access to data sets we cannot.  Even so, with judicious 'blinding' and 'action repression' methods, they can be made to appear more able than a good number of human players -- and without that -->  :.  little designator that tells you they are BOTs -- could be mistaken for Live Players.  Sort of a Skynet moment, as it were.

 

OvO



Project100 #158 Posted Jan 04 2019 - 19:42

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 2972 battles
  • 1,138
  • [I-U-D] I-U-D
  • Member since:
    01-01-2016

View Postdunniteowl, on Jan 04 2019 - 12:45, said:

We have to wonder, though, how much 'access' to the game in play do the BOTs get allowed?  In other words, do they have access to game level meta-information that we, as humans cannot?  After all, they are PART of the game as opposed to participating in one.  It certainly bears thinking about as a total.

 

If the game can end with more BOTs surviving than humans, it might mean they have access to data sets we cannot.  Even so, with judicious 'blinding' and 'action repression' methods, they can be made to appear more able than a good number of human players -- and without that -->  :.  little designator that tells you they are BOTs -- could be mistaken for Live Players.  Sort of a Skynet moment, as it were.

 

OvO

 

Owl,

 

If you haven't watched that video that I linked, go watch it. Kellerman is a bit over-the-top sometimes, but the video itself is very interesting to watch. The Bots win 14-12 with 3 Bots remaining versus 1 Human.

 

It would be interesting to know a bit more about HOW the bots are programmed. Since they are a part of the game, it's pretty much a given that they have complete knowledge of the maps including firing lanes, topography, and locations of all cover/concealment. But is there a "fudge factor" built in so that they don't always take perfect positioning? Bots don't ever get shaky hands from adrenaline like human players do so does their RNG get progressively worse in a tight battle to simulate it?

 

To be honest, I'd rather play with bots than some of the people I end up having on my team. ( And, yes, I'm sure that some would say the same about me some days ;) )

 

At least Bots don't ping the map 900 times or rage in chat after they get killed doing something stupid or send you messages in the garage telling you to uninstall and KYS.

 

And they probably don't intentionally TK anyone either.



dunniteowl #159 Posted Jan 04 2019 - 20:53

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 27690 battles
  • 6,645
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

I just watched it over a bowl of Tortilla Soup with Avocados *(Mmm, mmm, MMM! dee lish).

 

O.   M.   G!

 

First of all the BOTs are not that bright, apparently, though still obviously 'better' in many ways to Human Players on the Server.  I am not sure that's a plus to the BOTs or a criticism of the Player Base.  I'm going to sit the fence on that one.

 

I watched some very bad play by both BOTs and human players.  I also saw that the BOTs really won out due to lack of impatience in most cases and focus on their targets when in close proximity.  They seem to get less distracted by other opponents WHEN they are farther from them than their targets.  I did note that the units were easily distracted when multiple units were in close proximity and spotted.  This seems to imply that they have a 'Target Preference' routine that selects first based on distance to target and then, possibly, type of unit.

 

In the Cap Circle with the SU who was human, I think the cap could have been held by the SU had he simply rocked between one side of that house and the other -- end to end, I mean.  Once he came up on the one side, the Hellcat backed up.  Then when he went to the other side, he'd backed away from the house to get a shot and got nailed.  If he had stuck close to the house, I do wonder if the Hellcat would have reversed and tried the other side?

 

The Churchill, once it lost sight of any target and there were no spotted units anywhere else on the map simply rocked a few times at the hillcrest and then went along a pathed route that followed the road on the map towards the Cap Circle.  Even so, he sat there 'guarding' and 'watching' for opposition when a human would (normally) have gone hunting for the M41 or Capped.  So there is clearly some 'gimping' of them as regards location of units.


They must not have more access to the positional data of units than any other player and I can see how that would be easily accomplished programming-wise.  

 

And yeah, they do not shake, get excited, panicked or too aggro, so there is clearly no algorithm in place to allow them to 'mock' human behavior.

 

Not knowing how deeply interconnected they are to meta-data, it's clear that LOS, LOF and levels of cover and concealment are 'available' to them as they back up behind objects, circle around in cover and use concealment to some degree, though this could be coincidental behavior to their method of pathing in the first place.  They also seem to 'know' the game rules, so that right there is a plus compared to many players in the game.

 

In fact, today on Airfield, I was in an AT-2 and on the South west side covering the open area and getting shots in on the HVY action at Killer's Hill in the middle.  Some guy in an Excelsior was calling me a coward, because I didn't get into Killer's Hill and mix it up 'like a man' and instead 'hid like a coward.'

 

I did 2 kills and did 683 HP damage to his No Kills and 203 HP of damage.  And there he was yammering away and map pinging like crazy and calling me a coward.  So I checked in the After Action Report.  He had a 44% WR and 43, yes FORTY THREE matches, total.  And he was already piloting tier V units.  Then again, that's a Premium, so maybe he got it as a Starter Package gift, I don't know.

 

You'll NEVER have a BOT pull that sort of stupidly ignorant arrogance -- ever.  I would also never have to explain to a BOT why that sort of behavior is just wrong on so many levels, so that's a definite plus to BOTs.

 

Things could get pretty interesting soon.

 

 

OvO



Project100 #160 Posted Jan 04 2019 - 21:48

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 2972 battles
  • 1,138
  • [I-U-D] I-U-D
  • Member since:
    01-01-2016

View Postdunniteowl, on Jan 04 2019 - 14:53, said:

I just watched it over a bowl of Tortilla Soup with Avocados *(Mmm, mmm, MMM! dee lish).

 

O.   M.   G!

 

First of all the BOTs are not that bright, apparently, though still obviously 'better' in many ways to Human Players on the Server.  I am not sure that's a plus to the BOTs or a criticism of the Player Base.  I'm going to sit the fence on that one.

 

<snip>

 

You'll NEVER have a BOT pull that sort of stupidly ignorant arrogance -- ever.  I would also never have to explain to a BOT why that sort of behavior is just wrong on so many levels, so that's a definite plus to BOTs.

 

Things could get pretty interesting soon.

 

 

OvO

 

I agree with you, I'm on the fence.

 

Though after the losses I had today, I'm leaning a bit more toward the bots. If bots were driving them, the only 2 light tanks in a battle on Lakeville would NOT CAMP in K2 like our Ke-Ho & Luchs did.

 

And the Ke-Ho had the unmitigated gall to ping the map a zillion times up and down the 4 line road after he got zapped like it was somebodies job to go there instead of his :facepalm: 

 

No, the bots aren't THAT smart, but at least they're not trying to farm damage at the expense of the team or acting like the dolt in your Airfield battle. At least they are "trying" to win according to their programming.

 

We live in interesting times.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users